Pauline Epistles: Did Apostle Paul Write Them All?

Out of the thirteen Pauline epistles, scholars have cast doubt on the authorial authenticity of at least six letters. Was there a fake apostle Paul? The possibility of pseudepigraphic works has sparked debates among theologians and historians for centuries. The evidence used by scholars ranges from historical settings to different styles of prose. Nevertheless, is this enough to argue that there was a pseudo-Paul?

Before getting into the specifics of the academic discourse and methodologies, it is crucial to first situate Paul’s letters. The Christian Bible is divided into two main sections: the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The Hebrew Bible contains genres such as Mosaic Law, prophetic writings, and wisdom literature. The second division, the New Testament, consists of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. Traditionally, scholars have attributed thirteen out of the 27 New Testament books to the apostle Paul, commonly known as the Pauline epistles.

It is likewise critical to understand the historical period. As far as most audiences can tell, the writers of all these books are primarily ancient Judeans or Israelites. Nevertheless, Paul, along with the other New Testament writers, writes in koine Greek. In fact, the entirety of the New Testament is in koine Greek, the common language or lingua-franca of most of the Mediterranean world during the first couple centuries of the common era.

If they are Jewish writers, why are they not written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Ancient languages developed through the process of conquest and their subsequential cultural impact. Greek culture began to spread, beginning with the conquest of Alexander the Great in the year 336 BCE. The intellectual and linguistic influence persisted under the Roman Empire. Because of this Hellenistic (Greek) impact, a common (koine) language became popular and widespread.

Dating the Pauline Epistles 

It may be safe to say that in most academic contexts, there is very little universal agreement on any given subject. This lack of agreement is amplified in the world of antiquity, for which primary sources are scarce, but partialities are plenty. With this disclosure in mind, many scholars agree that the Pauline epistles are the earliest Christian writings and thus serve as a window into the world of the earliest Christ-followers. On the conservative side, scholars like J.A.T. Robinson argue that the New Testament was entirely written before the year 70 CE.

Robinson primarily relies on external evidence to support his argument, particularly the absence of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This absence is noteworthy because the event holds significant historical importance and had been prophesied by Jesus of Nazareth himself.

Consequently, scholars speculate that the earliest of the Pauline Epistles were likely written between the years 48 CE and 64 CE. Galatians is generally agreed to be the oldest of all the New Testament corpus. It contains references to historical events and Paul’s interactions with other apostles, providing clues about its date. For instance, Paul mentions his meeting with Peter in Galatians 1:18 and the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2:1-10, events that can be roughly dated.

There are many approaches scholars use to analyze the authorial authenticity of a text. The first method, and perhaps the most obvious, is looking for internal evidence. Is the author making themselves known? At times, it can be apparent, and at other times, not. Although this is by no means a definitive verification, it is the starting point for most researchers. In the case of Paul, the internal evidence exists in a few cases and can be studied side by side. For example, there are portions where Paul points out that he is indeed writing with his “own” hand. For instance:

Galatians 6:11: “See what large letters I make when I am writing in my hand!” (NRSV).

Philemon 1:19 says, “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self” (NRSV).

These verses are unique for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they are somewhat randomly inserted into the text, not aligning neatly with the general message of the epistle. The phrase “in my own hand” suggests that only that specific section was literally written by Paul — like a modern-day signature.

This practice stems from the historical distinction between the practices of oration and writing. In antiquity, scribes, also called amanuenses, were responsible for transcribing spoken speeches. In the case of Paul, his amanuensis was named Tertius, and he, too, signed the letters. For example, Romans 16:22 says, “I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (NRSV). Similar to many service roles in antiquity, the amanuensis was part of the Roman system of slavery.

What about when a letter bears Paul’s signature but has a different style and message? To exemplify this problem, we will look at the issues with  I and II Thessalonians. Like the above verses from Galatians and Philemon, in II Thessalonians, there is a line claiming to be from Paul, “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you” (NRSV).

The main theological problem between I and II Thessalonians is their eschatological outlook. In I Thessalonians, Paul does not know the day on which Jesus Christ will return; however, he does give the sense that it will be unexpected — like a thief in the night. The sudden arrival of Jesus is to remove the believers from the “wrath to come.” However, scholar Bart Ehrman notes his position is different in II Thessalonians.

In the latter epistle, the return of Jesus does not come suddenly and unexpectedly but rather is anticipated with signs. If there is an anticipation of Jesus’ return with many signs, one can postpone their righteousness and God-fearing-ness or as Ehrman put it, “there is still time to sleep and drink” (Ehrman, 165). For Ehrman and many other scholars alike, there are at least two Christ-following religious sects with competing theologies.

Will the Real Saul of Tarsus Please Stand Up? 

Pseudepigrapha is a collection of ancient writings falsely attributed to someone else and has been in practice since antiquity. This may have been the case with II Thessalonians since it stands at complete odds with I Thessalonians. However, some scholars say that both Thessalonians must have been written by the same writer because there are impressive parallels between the two. Both begin with a greeting and stylistic approach reminiscent of Paul’s writings.

Supporters of the pseudepigraphic hypothesis suggest that the author of II Thessalonians might have had access to I Thessalonians, enabling them to mimic Paul’s style. The copying of style was likely an attempt to lend credibility by speaking in Paul’s “authoritative” voice. Once, and if, this credibility was established, the author could then introduce and advocate for their alternative viewpoint.

However, this argument appears to be somewhat far-fetched. It seems more reasonable to assume that there would have been individuals who opposed Paul’s teachings directly rather than fabricating entirely different doctrines in his name.

Ehrman suggests an alternative view in Forgery and Counterforgery, that one could think of II Thessalonians as a counter-forgery. II Thessalonians 2:2 alludes to a previous letter that claimed to be from Paul, stating it was “purporting to be from us.” If this were the case, then the authentic Paul wrote II Thessalonians.

Although tempting to believe, Ehrman argues against scholars who suggest this view. He notes that the writer of II Thessalonians relies too much on the previous letter and, thus, consequentially reaffirms its Pauline authenticity. There is a possibility that a third letter was in circulation.

Though it may seem shocking, these letters were not penned initially as holy scripture, allowing us to examine them without imposing an absolutist theological lens. Instructional letters can have nuances, evolving thought, and potential for change over time. Additionally, as Ehrman highlights, there is also a likelihood of alterations by scribes, an idea known as the “secretary hypothesis.”

There may be concerns about stylistic consistency when one person delivers an oration, and another transcribes it. Thus, one must ask: To what extent does the scribe act as an editor, and what content might have been omitted?

So, in the end, the debate regarding Paul remains open. While most scholars generally agree that the authentic Pauline epistles are Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon, there is no conclusion on the remaining letters.

As there is no hard evidence that can finally put an end to the debate, the disputed letters range from a spectrum of arguably-not-Paul to most-certainly-not-Paul. These letters include Ephesians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and Titus.

Whether or not they were written by the apostle Paul, they are, nonetheless, early Christian writings that provide significant historical insight. As the earliest primary sources historians have, along with the Didache, one can visualize the dynamic nature of early Christian literature and the ongoing development of religious practices and beliefs during that time.